 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007"Law-abiding" americans running roadblocks in Denver blizzard
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 (snip) Stacey Stegman, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said that the highway department and State Patrol are having problems with motorists running manned roadblocks on I-25. She said that drivers are simply ignoring state personnel north of Denver on I-25, around Colorado State Highway 7, and around Lincoln Avenue, south of Denver. Stegman said that state employees are taking the license numbers of the vehicles running the road blocks and those individuals could face penalties, including fines. (snip) --------------------------------- Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, running redlights ... and now this. > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, > running redlights ... and now this. I'm sure there are many drivers who DO obey the law, but there are enough scofflaws on the roads to make this practice dangerous. people get tired of the pigs trying to "protect us from ourselves"....if someone wants to go through the roadblock, then let them.....everyone should have the right to commit suicide > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, > running redlights ... and now this. >people get tired of the pigs trying to "protect us from ourselves"....if >someone wants to go through the roadblock, then let them.....everyone should >have the right to commit suicide The people involved know how the conversation with the cops will go. Cop: "Road's closed, turn around" Driver: "But I've got to be at some point beyond the closure" Cop: "Not my problem, now turn around before I decide to arrest your a.s". Better just to avoid it entirely.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >(snip) You call thems "law abiding". Who are you quoting? >>http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You call thems "law abiding". Who are you quoting? Mr. Irony. "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: >http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, >running redlights ... and now this. Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a good REASON. > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a > good REASON. Sure...let some bozo break a rule there, and Mother Nature will be the executioner. >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Sure...let some bozo break a rule there, and Mother Nature will be the >executioner. And then the local authorities will be blamed for not spending a million bucks trying to rescue these fools ... > Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. > If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have > learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a > good REASON. And if they DO resort to cannibalism and DO survive, then what? -- Vid the Kid Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 01:29 GMT Someone wrote: >And if they DO resort to cannibalism and DO survive, then what? They get elected to the Senate? --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! >> Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. >> If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have >> learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a >> good REASON. > > And if they DO resort to cannibalism and DO survive, then what? The talk show circuit? WM > -- > Vid the Kid >>> Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. >>> If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The talk show circuit? MOVIE DEAL !!! >> Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. >> If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have >> learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a >> good REASON. > >And if they DO resort to cannibalism and DO survive, then what? They've learned their fellow man isn't _just_ a means to an end. He's also a filling meal after his end. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. > If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have > learned a valuable lesson. Roads are generally closed for a > good REASON. Well, no, they aren't. Sometimes they are and sometimes they're closed for insufficient reason. Having driven around a few (unmanned) road closure barricades and safely gotten through in a car with the off-road abilities of a matchbox car, I'm certain of this. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. >> If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >road closure barricades and safely gotten through in a car with the >off-road abilities of a matchbox car, I'm certain of this. I remember one time in Richton Park, Il, when I was driving South down Governor's Highway/Pulaski. Not sure of the real name, but it is just South of where those two meet. Anyhow, the road was closed because it rained. Yep, they built the road by digging under the railroad tracks, rather than raising the bridge. So every time it drizzles, the road is closed. This time, they made us all detour to the East. Not knowing where I was going I ended up following the locals. We ended up about three blocks South on the road that was closed. Oh, we had to wait for traffic to clear, because in the three minutes of detour, the fucktard cops that threatened to arrest us if we did not "move along", and refused to answer any questions, decided to open the road back up. Every time I hear about a cop getting shot in that town, I hope he was one of the a.sholes who decided to "protect and serve" by threatening me. > > Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. > > If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > road closure barricades and safely gotten through in a car with the > off-road abilities of a matchbox car, I'm certain of this. And sometimes they are closed for good reasons. Or, in the case of a family in Oregon, sometimes they should be closed, but are not and people die as a result. Its possible that someone driving a vehicle that has minimal off-road capabilities can makes it whereas the goof with the all wheel drive will end up in a ditch. There's no way for the police to interview every driver about their capabilities and destination. Perhaps a better solution (than an arrest) would be to charge anyone passing the roadblock sign some large fee in the event they require rescue. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a thumb. >> > Well, just LET 'em sit around for a week in a snow-covered SUV. >> > If they survive without resorting to cannibalism they will have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And sometimes they are closed for good reasons. I agree, but the problem is that of the boy who cried "Wolf". If you often close roads for insufficient reasons, more and more people are going to not take your road closures seriously. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > If you > often close roads for insufficient reasons, more and more people are > going to not take your road closures seriously. You seem to imply a blizzard in progress is insufficient reason to close a road. You might consider the best time to close a road is probably -before- it becomes impassable, and the state not -take the chance- of needing to clear the road of snow -and- vehicles, and the associated delays and expenses that will cause, not to mention the potential expense of rescuing thousands of drivers/clearing the dead. Even though not accepting any chance is contrary to popular r.a.d. perspective, some people have more sense. ----- - gpsman > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > If you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You seem to imply a blizzard in progress is insufficient reason to > close a road. One mans blizzard is another's snow flurry. > You might consider the best time to close a road is probably -before- > it becomes impassable, Impassable to whom? > and the state not -take the chance- of needing > to clear the road of snow -and- vehicles, and the associated delays and > expenses that will cause, not to mention the potential expense of > rescuing thousands of drivers/clearing the dead. Consider the possibility that the people stuck behind a roadblock may be at greater risk of exposure to the elements than if they drove to a nice warm house. > Even though not accepting any chance is contrary to popular r.a.d. > perspective, some people have more sense. The question left unanswered is who is better at assessing the risks assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck vehicle for example)? > ----- > > - gpsman SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I could get a new lease on life but I need the first and last month in advance. > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > > If you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > One mans blizzard is another's snow flurry. Perhaps. But an official definition of snow flurry does not exist, so let's assume he's ignorant. > > You might consider the best time to close a road is probably -before- > > it becomes impassable, > > Impassable to whom? Drivers. Prudence is not based on best case scenarios. > > and the state not -take the chance- of needing > > to clear the road of snow -and- vehicles, and the associated delays and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at greater risk of exposure to the elements than if they drove to a nice > warm house. They don't block the road and leave drivers on the highway, you nitwit. What would be the sense of that? > > Even though not accepting any chance is contrary to popular r.a.d. > > perspective, some people have more sense. > > The question left unanswered is who is better at assessing the risks > assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck > vehicle for example)? Who might be "better" at assessing the risk is irrelevant. The road is the responsibility of the governing authority that maintains it, not the drivers who wish to use it. ----- - gpsman > > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > > > If you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Drivers. Prudence is not based on best case scenarios. It sems to be based on the most incompetent example we can find. Easy solution: suspend their license. They are no longer classified as 'drivers' and the road suddenly becomes passable. > > > and the state not -take the chance- of needing > > > to clear the road of snow -and- vehicles, and the associated delays and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They don't block the road and leave drivers on the highway, you nitwit. > What would be the sense of that? Yes they do. An 8 to 10 hour delay is nothing in Washington State. You don't turn around, since traffic is still approaching from behind you (they are too stupid to divert traffic an an interchange). > > > Even though not accepting any chance is contrary to popular r.a.d. > > > perspective, some people have more sense. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the responsibility of the governing authority that maintains it, not > the drivers who wish to use it. This is true. But that's why they get no respect. And when it comes time for a decision by the voters, they lose their jobs. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Misery loves company, especially this one. Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > > > > If you [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > solution: suspend their license. They are no longer classified as > 'drivers' and the road suddenly becomes passable. Yeah, that sounds real practical. > > They don't block the road and leave drivers on the highway, you nitwit. > > What would be the sense of that? > > Yes they do. An 8 to 10 hour delay is nothing in Washington State. You > don't turn around, since traffic is still approaching from behind you > (they are too stupid to divert traffic an an interchange). Gimme a cite. Somehow, I've never experienced that over Snoqualmie or into Crystal Mountain with snow falling to beat the band, and I feel certain your example of stupidity is exaggerated. On which WA interstate might not one reverse course through the median? > > > The question left unanswered is who is better at assessing the risks > > > assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is true. But that's why they get no respect. And when it comes time > for a decision by the voters, they lose their jobs. The highway department and DOT are not elected officials. Please, blow smoke up someone else's a.s, I'm full. ----- - gpsman gpsman wrote: <brevity snip> Copy and paste from aviation group: Kev <kdarl...@basit.com> wrote: > j...@frii.com wrote: > > Blush, I was one of the search and rescue pilots. > Good for you! Did you fly out of Ft Collins or ? Thank you! I flew out of FNL - Fort Collins / Loveland Airport. We flew 1.0 hours to Colorado Springs/Peterson Air Force Base for tasking, then flew the first half our our sortie, searching 2 of our 4 grids before lunch. Lunch/fuel at Pueblo (PUB), then our 3rd and 4th grid, then back to FNL. 8.5 hours total time. Our find was in grid #3. > > I believe > > Colorado Wing is credited with 20 finds and 4 saves. > What's the diff between a "find" and a "save" ? If there's a person > involved or ?? A find is when the target is located. The people may not be there, or had self-recovered, or may be deceased. A "save" is where a life is saved that would otherwise have been lost if that particular "find" had not happened. > > My crew found a jack-knifed 18-wheeler about 25 miles south of > > La Junta, Colorado on Colorado Highway 109. We coordinated with a > > national guard helicopter and they flew the trucker to a nearby > > hospital. One of the crew took a picture of the rig and the SOS stamped out in the snow. -- A single example of a pilot report of the CO S&R missions to rescue those with adequate judgment. ----- - gpsman > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > certain your example of stupidity is exaggerated. On which WA > interstate might not one reverse course through the median? Well, if you really knew WA State traffic, you'd know that for most of I-90 east of North Bend, the median is a green belt that is a minimum of a few hundred yard across. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hit any user to continue. Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > Well, if you really knew WA State traffic, you'd know that for most of > I-90 east of North Bend, the median is a green belt that is a minimum of > a few hundred yard across. I know it well enough to know you're fulla sh.t. http://i18.tinypic.com/42ji7tx.jpg ----- - gpsman <farts smoke> > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > > Well, if you really knew WA State traffic, you'd know that for most of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know it well enough to know you're fulla sh.t. > http://i18.tinypic.com/42ji7tx.jpg What's that prove, gpsmoron? Actually east of Thorpe up to Ryegrass Summit, there is a greenbelt median. BUT - if you don't have 4WD, and decent clearance, you are not going to be able to traverse it. Even then, you have to have some skill, because the median is soft, and the angle at the center is deceptively steep (as in, at 70mph, you can't tell how steep it is.) While it may be only 25-50 yards across, max, it's no simple task to turn yourself around there. And in a regular sedan, even under ideal conditions, I'd say the places to u-turn are few and far between - and mostly at emergency vehicle turn-arounds even so. West of Thorpe, all the way to Issaquah, the road is more often separated by trees, elevation, or jersey barrier. Or some combination thereof. Even at the summit, there is a jersey barrier, so no turning around. Fulla sh.t? Yeah, you are. I drive the pass once per month, at least, including the Vantage-Lake Washington portion of I-90. I have been trapped by road closures twice. Once for three hours, once for over 10 hours. FYI, playing Texas hold-em with gloves on, on the hood of a car, is tough. E.P. > I have been trapped by road closures twice. Once for three hours, > once for over 10 hours. FYI, playing Texas hold-em with gloves on, > on the hood of a car, is tough. Is there a reason why the state doesn't divert traffic to the nearest interchange and implement a contraflow plan of sorts to allow drivers to go back to the previous interchange? > > I have been trapped by road closures twice. Once for three hours, > > once for over 10 hours. FYI, playing Texas hold-em with gloves on, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interchange and implement a contraflow plan of sorts to allow drivers to > go back to the previous interchange? In both cases, the nearest interchange was behind me. Quite a ways back, in fact. I've never seen any sort of "go the other way" plan implemented, but I've only been caught twice. E.P. > > I have been trapped by road closures twice. Once for three hours, > > once for over 10 hours. FYI, playing Texas hold-em with gloves on, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interchange and implement a contraflow plan of sorts to allow drivers to > go back to the previous interchange? You'd think that, since they are stopping traffic a few miles before the pass, they'd just stop it at the nearest convenient interchange and let people take the exit and go back. But that doesn't make for the heroic "Look how bad the traffic pile-up is" footage on the evening news. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leap and the net will appear. > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > > Well, if you really knew WA State traffic, you'd know that for most of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know it well enough to know you're fulla sh.t. > http://i18.tinypic.com/42ji7tx.jpg Why not post a link to the location using Google Earth or Terraserver? That way, people can see the terrain for themselves. A 2 mile to the inch scale map doesn't prove anything. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure. > > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> > > > Well, if you really knew WA State traffic, you'd know that for most of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why not post a link to the location using Google Earth or Terraserver? Why not do it yourself? We both know why, don't we...? > That way, people can see the terrain for themselves. A 2 mile to the > inch scale map doesn't prove anything. Mebbe not, but it beats your evidence, hands down. ----- - gpsman >>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That way, people can see the terrain for themselves. A 2 mile to the > inch scale map doesn't prove anything. Haven't you figured out that gpstroll just likes to argue? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 09 Jan 2007 01:50 GMT Someone wrote: >>>Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Haven't you figured out that gpstroll just likes to argue? And it does a very pathetic job of it. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > > If you [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck > vehicle for example)? How about those who want to pass the roadblock sign a form stating that they don't expect to get rescued ( alive ) in the event something nasty happens to them ? Graham > > > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > > > If you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > don't expect to get rescued ( alive ) in the event something nasty happens to > them ? That's all you'd have to put on the sign. 'Proceed at your own risk. No rescue provided beyond this point'. Passing the sign would imply acceptance of the terms. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ professor; n, One who talks in someone else's sleep. > The question left unanswered is who is better at assessing the risks > assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck > vehicle for example)? In the case of the roadways, I tend to leave that assessment to the highway folks. Consider that they are under control of the state or local government, and that those governments HATE to have transportation shutdowns because of the effects on the economy. Consequently, they aren't likely to take shutdowns lightly. There is also the consideration of HUGE numbers of people stranded on many roadways. Looking for people on I70 is one thing. Looking for people on mountain backroads or extremely rural farm roads is entirely another. This entails a LOT of people, equipment, overtime, and schedules disrupted, just because a bunch of shmucks believed they could drive their yacht past 9 foot drifts. Finally, but not lastly, when all those vehicles get stuck and abandoned, they make it virtually impossible to plow the roads clear. In a way, I find myself on both sides of the fence. I recall in Colorado a somewhat intensive search and rescue operation for a bunch of rich dudes-- a dozen or more if memory serves-- in the mountains who overestimated their abilities and equipment. It was a huge and very expensive rescue effort to get these guys who did virtually nothing right. In discussing this with others, who thought they should not have gone, I supported the idea that if you want to go hiking in the moutains in winter in a snowstorm you are perfectly welcome and it's fine by me. I would certainly support a backwoods permit with a nominal fee to support a rescue fund, etc., but I wouldn't say you can't go. I would love to go on such myself. This may seems at odds with the road situation. However, the likelihood that someone will attempt a winter mountain hike without reasonable preparation is low, compared to the numbers of drivers who go just about anywhere without even a coat and mittens. The hikers could likely last for days--maybe even a couple weeks. The drivers feel panicky in a few hours, and forget about overnight because that would be a tragic ordeal. In addition, the hike in the mountains is the purpose. Driving usually isn't the purpose--it's the means. Whatever you are driving to can be driven to later. A winter mountain hike has to be done in the winter in the mountains. Your mileage may vary. > > The question left unanswered is who is better at assessing the risks > > assuming the consequences are known (fee charged for rescuing stuck [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > transportation shutdowns because of the effects on the economy. > Consequently, they aren't likely to take shutdowns lightly. That's right. They don't take them lightly. Shutdowns are a major photo op. for the politicians and their minions. We get 2 inches around here and its 'Breaking News' on TV, with all the talking heads chasing highway dept. officials with cameras. A few years ago, they got so upset about people passing snow plows (it makes the road clearing efforts look less heroic) that they tried to make it illegal. > There is also the consideration of HUGE numbers of people stranded on > many roadways. Looking for people on I70 is one thing. Looking for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when all those vehicles get stuck and abandoned, they make it virtually > impossible to plow the roads clear. You can move a lot of vehicles onto the shoulder rapidly with a D8 Caterpillar. > In a way, I find myself on both sides of the fence. I recall in > Colorado a somewhat intensive search and rescue operation for a bunch [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nominal fee to support a rescue fund, etc., but I wouldn't say you > can't go. I would love to go on such myself. Nominal fee? You pay the whole thing. If you can't afford the national guard helicopters, you buy an insurance policy. If you can't afford that, stay out of the woods. I think towing insurance should be a part of all mandatory insurance packages. You break down on the highway, you pay to have your beater hauled off. In a way, it already works that way. If the DOT has to have your car towed, you've got to pay to get it out of impound. > This may seems at odds with the road situation. However, the likelihood > that someone will attempt a winter mountain hike without reasonable [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Your mileage may vary. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ professor; n, One who talks in someone else's sleep. > That's right. They don't take them lightly. Shutdowns are a major photo > op. for the politicians and their minions. We get 2 inches around here > and its 'Breaking News' on TV, with all the talking heads chasing > highway dept. officials with cameras. Where are you? When I lived in northern Minnesota, snow days were rare, closed roads were rarer. The average local yokel knew about driving in snow. When I lived in Colorado, closed roads on the flatland were occassional, but usually well deserved. Mountain passes were a different issue as you might guess. > A few years ago, they got so upset about people passing snow plows (it > makes the road clearing efforts look less heroic) that they tried to > make it illegal. I suspect the reason is more likely that those little car thingies might be whizzing past in the unplowed portion, or barely under control, etc. Still, I don't think I'd make it flat-out illegal. Some of those plows are pretty slow. > > There is also the consideration of HUGE numbers of people stranded on > > many roadways. Looking for people on I70 is one thing. Looking for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You can move a lot of vehicles onto the shoulder rapidly with a D8 > Caterpillar. I'd like to see the plows just pile the snow on top of the stuck vehicles whose drivers thought they could go where they couldn't. > > In a way, I find myself on both sides of the fence. I recall in > > Colorado a somewhat intensive search and rescue operation for a bunch [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > guard helicopters, you buy an insurance policy. If you can't afford > that, stay out of the woods. IIRC, the nominal fee for hikers was a dollar or some such, and in a way it did constitute an insurance policy. My gripe at the time was that hunters were REQUIRED to pay the fee, on each of their licences. Hikers and others had a voluntary payment. (Seemed like hunters rarely got lost--they won't usually go further from camp than they can drag their game. But day-hikers and rock scramblers seemed to drop from their perches on a regular basis. Could just be my bias though.) Then there are the rescues for those that are neither hunters nor hikers. How do they contribute? By the time you are done, you just charge everyone in the state a buck a year, and rescue everyone. It's not like you aren't going to rescue them if they don't, or bill them if they are poor. > I think towing insurance should be a part of all mandatory insurance > packages. You break down on the highway, you pay to have your beater > hauled off. In a way, it already works that way. If the DOT has to have > your car towed, you've got to pay to get it out of impound. Impound ripoffs are too big a topic. I'm not going there. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: > Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, > running redlights ... and now this. ¿¿So why do you care?? They aren't endangering *you* you hypocrite. And by your prediction, gas should be at $4.00 by MONDAY, you liar. I'm holding you to it. -- necromancer Smart enough to live where there are no blizzards. > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk > Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Smart enough to live where there are no blizzards. Will you be sending Aunt Judy a bill for the difference? Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), MLOM said in rec.autos.driving: > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk > > Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Will you be sending Aunt Judy a bill for the difference? Nah. I doubt it could afford the bill. I'll settle for its being humiliated in yet another failure in its miserable failure of a life and existence. ;) SignatureLBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops: "Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take the place of these two. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2 Message ID: dujhg25i1fecsoh791df5qe1fmk7fiu0na@4ax.com Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 23 Dec 2006 15:21 GMT Someone wrote: >Colorado Department of >Transportation <snip> There's yer problemo, retardo. =)) Signature"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:21:17 -0500, "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote: >Someone wrote: >>Colorado Department of >>Transportation > ><snip> There's yer problemo, retardo. =)) Actually, the 'problem' lies in the name 'Colorado'. Anywhere on the west slope you're looking at a lot of fiercly independent folks who aren't interested in the government telling them ANYTHING. John-Birch Republicans and Libertarians - rugged individualist types. If they WANNA take on a snow-choked road then they're GONNA. 99.99% will do just fine. Of course there's always that 0.01 percent ...... Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 25 Dec 2006 22:20 GMT Someone wrote: >On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:21:17 -0500, "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM >(Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Actually, the 'problem' lies in the name 'Colorado'. That was my point. Signature"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 --- When asked if Sentator Kennedy would consider a Presidential Nomination for the next election, Ted responded by stating "I'll drive off that bridge when I come to it." --- Kennedy to Search Iraqi Rivers for WMD by Scott Ott (2003-01-21) -- Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, offered to help the U.N. weapons inspectors by personally searching the bottoms of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for canisters of gas or biological agents. The Senator, who had some experience diving on a submerged metal object in 1969, said, "Each citizen must do what he can to support the effort to disarm Saddam. I'm going to see if I can get to the bottom of this thing...as it were. I'm hoping to come up with something...uh...again, as it were." Sen. Kennedy declined to discuss the specifics of his previous diving experience. --- NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana --- Ted Kennedy announced today that he will lead a team of SCUBA divers to search for any survivors who might be left from the Katrina aftermath. "I have unique experience in this area," said Kennedy. "We will try and try to dive down and find survivors beneath the flood waters. We will do everything possible. We cannot fail. We must not." A reporter mentioned to Kennedy that surely there would be no survivors under the flood waters at this point in time. "It wasn't safe," said Kennedy. "How could we dive to find survivors when it wasn't safe? The important thing is that I tried. I did everything I could to dive down and find survivors." > Actually, the 'problem' lies in the name 'Colorado'. > Anywhere on the west slope you're looking at a lot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they're GONNA. 99.99% will do just fine. Of course > there's always that 0.01 percent ...... See, there's the problem. Restricting 9999 people who want to get from point A to point B just because 1 person isn't going to make it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >.01 percent ...... > > See, there's the problem. Restricting 9999 people who want to get > from point A to point B just because 1 person isn't going to make it. Not so much just that 1 person won't make it, but because the rest of us foot the bills for the rescue folks who place themselves and their equipment at risk to go get the idiot's sorry butt out of a situation he should have had the brains to aviod in the first place. Also, when that 1 person doesn't make it, he's usually stuck in the middle of the road, and blocks everyone else. Then you have LOTS of people out in the middle of nowhere. Most have no equipment or knowledge about how to last even a couple hours in a good snowstorm. Jeez, half of them can't change a tire on the way to the grocery store on a balmy blue spring day. Since society won't let Darwin whittle things down, society has to place limits on behavior. > >.01 percent ...... > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > middle of the road, and blocks everyone else. Then you have LOTS of > people out in the middle of nowhere. Then you do what I saw some people in Spain do some years ago. Some people broke down in the middle of a small road, blocking all traffic. The occupants of the car got out and, with the assistance of other drivers, they just shoved the car off the road into a ditch. Everyone (except the stranded family) just got in their cars and drove off. Someone probably reported the breakdown to the local police. And Spain in the spring isn't a hostile climate to sit around in. But the whole idea of stopping everyone just because one person can't make it seems pretty bizarre to the rest of the world. Got a bad accident? Get the bodies out and shove the wreck off the road. None of this taking photos, measuring the skid marks and surveying equipment to bugger up life for everyone else. > Most have no equipment or > knowledge about how to last even a couple hours in a good snowstorm. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since society won't let Darwin whittle things down, society has to > place limits on behavior. I vote for Darwin. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let your mind wander -- it's too little to be let out alone. Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > > >.01 percent ...... > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > drivers, they just shoved the car off the road into a ditch. Everyone > (except the stranded family) just got in their cars and drove off. A solution which is a tad unfeasible in 36 inches of snow. I'll give you 36 people and bet they won't move any vehicle toward off the road more than 36 inches. > I vote for Darwin. Easy for you to say. Darwin might operate a snowplow that will slam into the buried vehicles in which the idiots are struggling to survive. ----- - gpsman >>.01 percent ...... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >equipment at risk to go get the idiot's sorry butt out of a situation >he should have had the brains to aviod in the first place. So don't rescue him. Or charge the idiot for it. Or suck it up; you still haven't managed a justification for restricting 10,000 based on the idiocy of 1. >Also, when that 1 person doesn't make it, he's usually stuck in the >middle of the road, and blocks everyone else. And this is worse than closing the entire road how? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > So don't rescue him. Or charge the idiot for it. Failure to rescue is no longer tolerated in our society. We look for boaters, mountain climbers, day-hikers, idiots on the freeway who cause wrecks, people who use gasoline to start their fireplace, whatever. Lots of other activities have restrictions on them as well. And frequently I don't like those restrictions! But driving into a howling blizzard on open freeways isn't recreation; it's tempting Darwin. Have at it. And, we usually don't charge for rescue. (Except for hunters. In CO, they get to pay 25 cents per license for a rescue fund. The fund gets used for non-hunters as well, though. jeez. And yes, there are more details.) >Or suck it up; you > still haven't managed a justification for restricting 10,000 based on > the idiocy of 1. I don't need to justify anything--I didn't make the rules. If you don't like the rules, you are able to drive around the barricades into the blizzard. Please paint your name on the top of your vehicle, so that if/when you get stranded we will recognize you and leave you alone. Enjoy the hike. Don't take the kids. > >Also, when that 1 person doesn't make it, he's usually stuck in the > >middle of the road, and blocks everyone else. > > And this is worse than closing the entire road how? Well, I wouldn't have to listen to you whine about how the guys that got stuck did so in the left lane! ;<) > > So don't rescue him. Or charge the idiot for it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > blizzard on open freeways isn't recreation; it's tempting Darwin. Have > at it. Its not recreation, its my daily life. I might live down that road. Perhaps my kids are waiting at home for me. Ot I have to feed the livestock. > And, we usually don't charge for rescue. Why not? What this boils down to is that the 'general public' expects not to accept any responsibility for their behavior. They buy some incapable land yacht and don't bother to learn how to operate it. Then, they expect that the world will maintain everything to suit their shortcomings and pick up the tab for it as well. > (Except for hunters. In CO, > they get to pay 25 cents per license for a rescue fund. The fund gets [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well, I wouldn't have to listen to you whine about how the guys that > got stuck did so in the left lane! ;<) SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (Translation from Latin: "I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.") >> So don't rescue him. Or charge the idiot for it. > >Failure to rescue is no longer tolerated in our society. Adult-swaddling is as intolerable; while the powers that be welcome it, obviously the individuals affected often do not -- or nobody would be bypassing those roadblocks. >But driving into a howling >blizzard on open freeways isn't recreation; it's tempting Darwin. Have >at it. That 'have at it' is all I ask. >I don't need to justify anything--I didn't make the rules. Just following orders, eh? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > (snip) A fine? Cool! Will this work on NYE when I will no doubt run into a sobriety checkpoint? I'd rather deal with a fine for evading the checkpoint that a DUI. Thanks for the tip! Americans generally are law-abiding, but also freedom-loving. What is the legal basis for these roadblocks? > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4879019 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do ANY americans ever obey the law while drivng.? Speeding, DUI, > running redlights ... and now this. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Bxdanny said in rec.autos.driving: > Americans generally are law-abiding, but also freedom-loving. What is > the legal basis for these roadblocks? Protecting people from themselves. In other words, interfering with Darwin's work. SignatureLoco Laura demonstrates how inconsistent its thinking is: "and besides there is no way to enforce slow driving speed limits. THINK" --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 1/30/06 Message ID: <1138602667.405570.55400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.